From: Avatar Polymorph (avatarpolymorph@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 23:25:38 MDT
Natasha Vita-More wrote:
"These possibilities are entirely plausible and, as such, "mortal" entities
would somehow be a different type of being by the very nature they are
mortal -- having a limited lifespan. However, if we fuzzy the meaning of
mortal and rearrange it so that it has a different application, then mortal
could relate to living from one type of life span and then shedding that
skin to live another lifespan. And so on.
The individuals or entities neurologically connected/ing to other
individuals or entities via a interconnected technology could be either
human, transhuman or posthuman. But I see this as a method of communication
rather than biology. We connect to others just as we type our sentences
here. Upgrade than and square it off a bit and we are interfacing right
smack into the core of each other's neurological mechanics. Primo Posthuman
does this through its metabrain's conceptualized capacity."
Yes, I agree. Memory and mindtype can be reformed (just like in Dr Who)
periodically as one "solution" to longevity difficulties outside of other
forms of direct rewriring of our currently bodylocked state (including our
brains).
I think direct neurological connection is different to writing or speaking
or touching in that it is not "filtered" through the senses. It thus
subverts aspects of traditional Indian and some Western thinking on the
issue of reality. [There are of course subsidiary arguments about how
internal neuroligical activity is shaped by the external physical world
including sensory inputs but this may be a furphy...]
Natasha also wrote:
"Artificial, like many words that fit neatly into a social dictionary,
change over time, just as our values change over time. What was once
unnatural or artificial becomes natural after we begin to have a
relationship with it and integrate it into our lives. Artificial
Intelligence or Machine Intelligence was once considered a block of
technology -- unfamiliar and distant. Today we have been introduced to the
benefits of biotechnology and have adapted to a wide range of robotics and
prosthetics which have become part of our bodies, and thus our minds.
Virtual beings exist within some from or another, currently a type of
algorithmic code. Even when the form becomes somewhat transparent or
entirely fluid, it still has some metaphorical sticky stuff holding it
together."
I personally resist the temptation to assume a hierarchy of existence after
the Singularity, though there are undoubtedly scales of complexity. Even
with nanotech, we can assume major shifts in form back and forth on scales
of one hour-24 hours if not less. Even with superintelligence, I believe
myself a lot of disussion on the subject is full of cultural bias and
misunderstanding of the variant forms of intelligence. For some disussion on
this topic, see bjklein at:
http://www.bjklein.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=418
I don't accept that virtual beings exist within code, semiotically. They
exist in the substrate. For example, the coding for a human being in atomic
terms was quoted a few months ago as being capable of storage in a one meter
block. But until that coding is assembled and activated it is not in
existence. [If assembled and not acitvated it also cannot consent to a state
of "hibernation".]
I myself find almost no meaning for the term "artificial" intellectually in
terms of the Singularity and transhumanism. Drexler pointed out that
molecules are molecules and that he could duplicate the behaviours exhibited
in "life" in other ways, e.g. in cellular repair [if you like the
cell-structure schema]. "Life" has no real relevance for me but "sentiency"
does and "consciousness" does [as a sub-set of sentiency, at present]. If
artificial means that part of the environment consciously affected by
humankind, the whole world is artificial by this stage...! And the solar
system is shortly to follow, with assemblers making assemblers out of
asteroid material and assemblers making sequential rotating intra-orbital
space tethers/towers and so forth...
--- Thank you for your comments, Natasha (both insightful and considered). --- In my earlier comment I did miss out on some other forms of posthuman or transhuman existence, of course, namely the fully uploaded-into-computronium/non-"biological" body forms and beings with computronium-style brains and fully nanotech bodies (whether with biological-type cells or in other forms). Definitions are very difficult when such things such as -level of neurological interaction (broadcast and/or direct linkage) -level of mortality -level/length of control of cells -type of "body" -type of "brain" -level of entry into virtualities are all malleable and reversible! Perhaps in a way discussion of ethics and morality in such areas as privacy, protective shielding (sysop) and offered boosting will turn out to be more clear cut... I also suspect cultural form will be far more important to a posthuman or transhuman than bodily form. I certainly don't think myself that posthuman, for example, means that there won't be humans around including mortal humans. And I don't believe that a self-directed sentient being that is "superintelligent" at some levels is ethically more valuable to a current day human being. I do though believe myself that most human beings will request boosting and then self-boost where appropriate [making them currently "preborn"]. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:00 MST